The US-Israeli war on Iran has sparked a broad debate inside the United States over the future of Washington’s role in the Middle East, with analysts arguing that decades of US military involvement have produced counterproductive results and intensified conflicts rather than delivering stability.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, Michael Fuchs, director of the Open Society Foundations and a former deputy assistant secretary of state under Barack Obama as well as a former special assistant to President Joe Biden, described the war with Iran as a “colossal disaster”.
He argued that the United States and Israel launched an unnecessary campaign that violated international law, killed at least 1,700 Iranian civilians, including 307 children, caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and fuelled further instability across the region.
The magazine said Iranian retaliation against the military campaign killed 18 US soldiers and wounded more than 600 others at bases in neighbouring countries, while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered a sharp rise in energy prices that was felt around the world.
Foreign Affairs argued that the latest war with Iran is not an isolated episode, but the newest consequence of a series of decisions taken by the United States over the past 35 years. According to Fuchs, those decisions have made Washington less secure while contributing to further conflict across the Middle East.
For decades, the United States has treated its military presence in the region as essential to protecting its strategic interests and maintaining regional security, including by protecting allies such as Israel and Gulf states, containing Iran and other adversaries, and combating terrorism.
But the article argued that the US military presence itself has become a destabilising force, a dynamic it said was clearly demonstrated in the campaign against Iran, where the war produced many of the very risks US policy was supposed to prevent.
Fuchs argued that the time to withdraw US forces from the Middle East is long overdue. He also called for an end to arming governments that violate US and international law, and for Washington to abandon its role as the principal guarantor of the regional order.
Such a shift, Foreign Affairs said, would allow the United States to focus on priorities it considers more important, including preventing conflicts between major powers in Asia and Europe.
Blood and resources
The magazine identified the 1990-1991 Gulf War as a turning point that entrenched the US military presence in the Middle East, transforming the peak of American power after the Cold War into a long-term commitment that continued for decades.
Successive US administrations maintained tens of thousands of troops across the region based on the belief that a permanent military presence was necessary to guarantee energy flows, support Israel, confront terrorist groups and deter Iran.
But Foreign Affairs argued that the same military presence can itself generate risks by exposing host countries to retaliation and drawing the United States into complex internal and regional conflicts.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it said, not only trapped American forces in a long and bloody war, but also exposed them to attacks by Iranian-backed militias, prompting Washington to carry out retaliatory military operations inside Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.
The repercussions of the war in Afghanistan also spread into Pakistan, where the United States carried out hundreds of drone strikes against armed groups attacking US forces across the border.
After withdrawing most of its forces from Iraq in 2011, the United States was compelled to redeploy troops in 2014 to fight the Islamic State group, which emerged amid the chaos left by the US invasion.
The costs of prolonged US involvement in the Middle East were not limited to military losses. Foreign Affairs said Washington spent around $8 trillion on its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other operations conducted under the “war on terror” launched after the September 11 attacks.
Those wars resulted in the deaths of more than 15,000 US military personnel and contractors, while around 1.8 million service members suffered disabilities.
The peoples of the region bore an even greater burden. More than 940,000 people were killed through direct violence, including 432,000 civilians, while around 3.6 million died as a result of the indirect consequences of institutional collapse in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen. Around 38 million people were displaced.
Foreign Affairs also argued that the United States directly contributed to violence and repression committed by other states through security partnerships with governments pursuing their own regional agendas.
It cited US support for authoritarian governments, including Egypt, Washington’s backing for the Saudi campaign in Yemen, and US support that enabled the United Arab Emirates to play a role in Sudan’s civil war, where UN investigators documented acts they said amounted to genocide.
According to the magazine, such relationships intensified public anger both towards those governments and towards the United States itself.
Israel as a model of disastrous security ties
Foreign Affairs pointed to the US relationship with Israel as a clear example of how deeply entrenched security ties can produce disastrous consequences.
Since the decline of the Oslo negotiations in the 1990s, the magazine argued, US support for Israel effectively became a “blank cheque” for successive Israeli governments.
It said those governments undermined prospects for peace with the Palestinians through policies of gradual annexation and systematic repression in the West Bank.
In recent years, US support has also enabled Israel to continue its military operations in Gaza, the magazine said, noting that a UN fact-finding mission concluded that what is happening there amounts to “genocide”.
A path out
Foreign Affairs argued that successive US presidents bear responsibility for the damage caused by Washington’s military presence in the Middle East, saying that this presence has implicated the United States in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
The magazine said Washington should begin correcting course by withdrawing its forces from the region once a stable ceasefire with Iran is achieved.
US leaders are currently facing long-term decisions, including whether to rebuild military bases damaged during the war with Iran and whether to approve new arms sales to regional partners.
Some defence analysts have advocated maintaining a limited military presence in the region, an option the US Department of Defense is reportedly considering. Fuchs, however, argued that a partial withdrawal would leave the United States exposed to continuing risks.
A complete US military withdrawal from the Middle East would not necessarily mean ending all forms of cooperation with regional states, the article said. However, it called for US assistance and arms sales to be brought into compliance with American law, which requires aid to be halted when recipients commit serious human rights abuses.
Reducing the US military presence would also allow Washington to expand its diplomatic, economic and humanitarian role, while supporting human rights and peaceful solutions to regional conflicts.
The article called for increased humanitarian assistance to Palestinians and support for economic projects intended to improve stability, including new pipelines that would allow energy exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.
It also argued that Washington could use the withdrawal process to make clear that aid to countries such as the UAE and Israel would be reduced unless they improve their human rights records and end regional policies described as destabilising.
Although the current US administration is unlikely to adopt such an approach easily, Foreign Affairs argued that Congress could still influence the future of US policy in the region by reducing funding for the Defense Department to replenish munitions and upgrade military bases, while attaching conditions to such expenditure.
Fears and realities
Opponents of reducing the US military presence in the Middle East warn that withdrawal could create major risks. Foreign Affairs acknowledged that these concerns are real, but argued that they can be managed.
Washington has long maintained that its regional military presence guarantees freedom of navigation. Yet the magazine noted that it was the US-Israeli war on Iran that led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, while the US military was unable to reopen it by force.
These developments, it said, raise questions about the value of maintaining the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
The magazine argued that Iran and Gulf states share an interest in keeping energy flows moving despite their political disputes.
It also said that the diversification of global energy supplies, increased US energy production and the growth of renewable energy make future disruptions to shipping less dangerous than they might once have been.
Foreign Affairs also challenged the argument that a US military presence is necessary to contain Iran, saying the latest war demonstrated Washington’s inability to protect its Gulf partners from Iranian attacks.
The Gulf states, it argued, need to build new regional security arrangements that do not depend entirely on Washington, while the United States could continue providing economic and diplomatic support.
Israel’s security
The magazine also argued that a prolonged US military presence has not necessarily made counterterrorism easier, suggesting that drone strikes and large-scale US military operations may have contributed to the motives driving armed groups to target Americans.
On Israel’s security, Foreign Affairs said Israel, as a nuclear-armed state with one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the region, is largely capable of defending itself.
The article argued that the US presence may have encouraged Israel to adopt policies that increased the threats it faces.
It called on Washington to place conditions on military assistance to Israel, including ending the occupation of Palestinian territories, seeking peace with the Palestinians, and halting military operations in Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
According to the magazine, such steps would reduce the risks Israel brings upon itself.
A broad public reassessment
Foreign Affairs said Americans are increasingly exhausted after decades of continuous wars in the Middle East.
It cited a recent opinion poll showing that 62 per cent of Americans prefer to stay out of wars as much as possible, compared with 33 per cent who support using military force when it serves the country’s interests.
The magazine argued that US leaders remain out of step with this public sentiment.
Donald Trump won presidential elections twice after criticising previous candidates over endless wars in the Middle East, the article noted, only to later enter a new war himself.
The Trump administration also used state power against opponents of its policies towards Israel, the magazine said, including by withholding funding from universities and deporting or imprisoning protesters, at a time when Americans were facing growing economic and cost-of-living pressures.
The US Defense Department budget reached around $1 trillion for 2026, with the administration moving towards a further 50 per cent increase in 2027.
Foreign Affairs concluded that the United States continues to play an important role in global security, particularly through its military presence and security guarantees in Europe and Asia aimed at preventing wars between major powers.
But it argued that the way Washington has managed its security role in the Middle East has caused more harm than benefit, and that although changing course will not be easy, it has become necessary.
